This slate feels like a collection of movies that all feel unlikely as winners, particularly compared to some of the excluded candidates (Deadpool, Florence Foster Jenkins) which I agree likely would have won in a walk had one of them been nominated.

What might help A Man Called Ove is simply that it's the strongest, most grown-up movie here (not that that's a high bar exactly), and perhaps the Foreign Film nomination helps raise its profile enough that it might get more voters to see it before filling out ballots. Still, you can guarantee the competitors will simply be more widely seen, and the makeup work here might not be flashy enough to offset that disadvantage. (I'm split on the nomination myself -- I think the transformation is believable enough, but to what end? Why not just cast an actor appropriate for the part?)

Suicide Squad certainly has a ton of makeup, with a number of creations -- Harley Quinn's multi-colored hair, the Joker's neon Goth look, Killer Croc's skin -- that are instantly memorable. But the movie is BAD, like some kind of big-budget experiment in utter plotlessness, and I wonder if the movie will just have too big of a stink around it for voters to feel comfortable making it an Oscar-winning film.

Star Trek Beyond feels a lot more like a place-filler nominee than something that would typically win, particularly given the been there-done that factor in having previously rewarded this franchise in this category. And I agree that, despite having some new alien creatures here and there, it doesn't feel like any kind of great inventive breakthrough in the makeup department. Still, I tend to think that this will hit the sweet spot of being widely seen enough to garner votes, and tolerable enough as filmmaking to eke out the win.

There was a feature about the makeup on the DVD for A Man Called Ove, and you do see that the real person looks much different from the character he plays, so it wasn't a case like The Hours, where most of the attention was on the prosthetic nose or Frida on the brow.

"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

I liked A Man Called Ove quite a bit, but I'm perplexed by it showing up here. The transformation of the lead actor into Ove is fine, but unremarkable (and according to Wikipedia, he is the exact age of the character, so there wasn't a lot of aging done here...more just altering). That said, there were a lot of other films that could have been sighted this year.

Suicide Squad is a mess of a film, and the make-up work is a mess too. There is a lot on display, and Killer Croc is impressive enough, but again there doesn't feel like anything new or fresh here. I don't find a lot of tattoos Oscar worthy.

That leaves Star Trek Beyond, which I am more excited about endorsing than it seems a lot of you. I enjoyed the film enough, and I thought the make-up work impressive too. There are a lot of aliens, but there are also a lot of new aliens and I found Jayleh especially impressive. This won't be the best winner we've had in this category, but I won't complain when it wins.

"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."- Minor Myers, Jr.

Mister Tee wrote:A Man Called Ove’s work is fairly reminiscent of last year’s The 100 Year Old Man… -- only the movie itself is much less fun, and the make-up seems fairly pointless (we mostly see Ove as either a youngish man or a quite old one; it would have been easier to hire two separate actors, rather than force the young one to wear a ton of make-up for the majority of the running time).

Mister Tee, Are you sure the same actor played Ove or am I reading what you wrote incorrectly? I found the nomination for make-up baffling as I assumed that Ove was played by two actors. I just checked imdb and they state (assuming that the information is correct and I have no reason to doubt that it isn't) that Rolf Lassagard played the older Ove and Filip Berg played the younger Ove.

I must admit that I would vote for A Man Called Ove simply because it is by far the best film even though I really didn't see anything outstanding in regards to the make-up. In someways that is a complement as the make up on the oldest Ove (Rolf Lassgard) is outstanding (i.e. it's not noticeably makeup) now that I can looked at a photo of the actor on imdb. Star Trek Beyond and Suicide Squad don't really show us anything we haven't seen before.

Well, I'd seen there was someone listed as Young Ove, but I assumed that must have been the child actor -- but now I look, and I see you're correct.

Which, honestly, leaves me even more mystified. Why in the name of god would you hire an actor 20-30 years too young for the character he plays for most of the running time, when it requires such a massive make-up job? (And I had much the opposite reaction you did to this: I kept seeing two pounds of make-up with an actor's face hidden somewhere beneath it.) The whole thing makes no sense to me.

But this group often seems to go out of its way to cite the worst possible films

The films may have been heavily criticized, but the makeup effects in them were quite good. This is especially true with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, which lost to the (much-superior) film Ed Wood that year. I would expect the technical branches to nominate movies that achieve success in their respective fields rather than just the popular titles. Another film left off the list that year was Wolf which featured much subtler werewolf effects than we were used to seeing from master Rick Baker. 1994 was just a Monster-a-thon year, lol. It might have made sense to expand the category in years where more than 3 strong candidates appear, like they do with Animation now.

"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

Mister Tee wrote:A Man Called Ove’s work is fairly reminiscent of last year’s The 100 Year Old Man… -- only the movie itself is much less fun, and the make-up seems fairly pointless (we mostly see Ove as either a youngish man or a quite old one; it would have been easier to hire two separate actors, rather than force the young one to wear a ton of make-up for the majority of the running time).

Mister Tee, Are you sure the same actor played Ove or am I reading what you wrote incorrectly? I found the nomination for make-up baffling as I assumed that Ove was played by two actors. I just checked imdb and they state (assuming that the information is correct and I have no reason to doubt that it isn't) that Rolf Lassagard played the older Ove and Filip Berg played the younger Ove.

I must admit that I would vote for A Man Called Ove simply because it is by far the best film even though I really didn't see anything outstanding in regards to the make-up. In someways that is a complement as the make up on the oldest Ove (Rolf Lassgard) is outstanding (i.e. it's not noticeably makeup) now that I can looked at a photo of the actor on imdb. Star Trek Beyond and Suicide Squad don't really show us anything we haven't seen before.

"I have no interest in all of that. I find that all tabloid stupidity" Woody Allen, The Guardian, 2014, in response to his adopted daughter's allegations.

Big Magilla wrote:They should go back to making this an honorary award, given only on occasion when there is something special worth awarding.

I disagree. I think they should follow the example of the Visual Effects branch and expand the category to 5.

They showed no love for either of the recent, well-regarded Planet of the Apes films, despite the fact that the original 1968 film had received one of the first honorary prizes in the field.

That's because the apes in the recent prequel franchise entries are CGI motion capture performances not makeup. They did, however, ignore the Tim Burton remake back in 2001 which did use actual makeup and ape suits AND created by Rick Baker.

We complain about the quirks of various Academy branches – the music branch for having such sliding standards when it comes to best song, and for always nominating John Williams; the sound folk for repeatedly inflicting Michael Bay films on us.

But I don’t think any branch is as consistent -- and perverse – in giving us weird, often unrepresentative nominees. You of course want voters to stay within their own discipline -- not just slot in best picture contenders, the way some branches will. But this group often seems to go out of its way to cite the worst possible films – Norbit the legendary example, of course, but one can’t forget The Lone Ranger, Click or The Time Machine, among others, over the years.

At the same time, the branch will frequently omit a prominent film, one that seems to have a strong chance of winning…giving the impression they know the film might get the votes, and want to take that opportunity away from the general membership. I noted this syndrome as far back as 1994, when they left off the box-office hit Interview with the Vampire (and rubbed it in by nominating a similar film, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, a greater failure both with critics and audiences). More recently, they blocked out Alice in Wonderland, a huge hit that in fact won two design Oscars, in favor of a slate of two obscurities plus ultimate winner The Wolfman -- a movie no better than and nowhere near as prominent as Alice. They showed no love for either of the recent, well-regarded Planet of the Apes films, despite the fact that the original 1968 film had received one of the first honorary prizes in the field. And, after expanding their designation a few years ago to include Hairstyling, they ignored America Hustle, which had notable achievement in that arena, and was of course a prime best picture contender.

Which brings us to this year’s slate of nominees, a group that sadly follows both these dubious traditions. Two decently-regarded films (at different ends of the spectrum) might easily have prevailed in a final vote -- Florence Foster Jenkins or Deadpool – but both were left out completely. In their place we find nothing special, and one film that got among the worst reviews of any major release this year.

So, this is the field with which we’re left:

A Man Called OveStar Trek BeyondSuicide Squad

What does one do with a field this uninspired? A Man Called Ove’s work is fairly reminiscent of last year’s The 100 Year Old Man… -- only the movie itself is much less fun, and the make-up seems fairly pointless (we mostly see Ove as either a youngish man or a quite old one; it would have been easier to hire two separate actors, rather than force the young one to wear a ton of make-up for the majority of the running time).

Speaking of a ton of make-up…Suicide Squad (this year’s “I forced myself to watch it, thinking of England the whole time” candidate) certainly has that. But voters have shown over the years that they’re not going to vote for one of these crappy movies the branch singles out, regardless of how impressive the make-up work might be.

Does that mean Star Trek Beyond takes it without a fight? The film has the usual assortment of alien creatures, but it’s not as if I finished the film thinking, now, there was some make-up work. Plus, it doesn’t seem fair: the first movie of this reboot already has a modestly-earned trophy in the category (it won without having to compete with District 9, which might have beaten it). But something has to win, and it’s the least repellent option.

If I had a ballot, I might vote for Suicide Squad – make them own these absurd nominations. But, playing the pure prediction game, I guess I’d have to opt for the dullness of another Star Trek win.